Another problem with this is the fact of how many people do such just for their own use. I mean take the ripping of DVD's for use on someone's own computer for example. If they decide to arrest and lock up everyone who does that they'll have a serious problem. The jails will be so full of offenders that the real criminals (murderers, bank robbers, embezzelers, etc.) won't have anywhere to sleep.

Interesting read... response the EFF made (pdf) during the comment period, in particular in regard to interpreting exemption 5 ("[C]ircumvention is undertaken for the purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the handset or tablet."):

Quote:

At the May 17 hearing, the Office raised questions concerning the scope of the proposed class of works, specifically whether there is any evidence that there is a need for, or evidence in support of, jailbreaking e-readers, such as the Kindle and the Nook. Please provide evidence supporting the inclusion of these devices, including those versions of the Kindle and Nook that serve solely or primarily as ebook readers, in the proposed class of works.

E-readers should be included in the proposed class of works because individuals also jailbreak and root these devices to customize their user experience. Indeed, there is a homebrew community devoted to developing independent software for devices that are solely or primarily marketed as e-readers, such as the Kindle Touch and Nook Color (Kindle Developer’s Corner, https://www.mobileread.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=150 (last visited
July 2, 2012); Nook Devs, http://nookdevs.com/ (last visited July 2, 2012).). Users who root their e-readers have the capability to modify their devices in order to:

Install custom screensaver images.

Create a basic tablet by installing an email program, preferred browser, media player, timer, currency converter, or other programs that are not pre-installed on the device. This may be particularly desirable where the e-reader is smaller, lighter, and has longer battery life than a standard tablet.

Install homebrew games.

Install input methods for other alphabets.

Customize the device’s interface, e.g., to control the device more easily with one hand, or install an application launcher with custom icons.

Make new, innovative uses of device hardware. For example, the Kindle Touch reportedly comes with a built-in accelerometer and proximity sensor, neither of which is used by any pre-installed software program.

Another problem with this is the fact of how many people do such just for their own use. I mean take the ripping of DVD's for use on someone's own computer for example. If they decide to arrest and lock up everyone who does that they'll have a serious problem. The jails will be so full of offenders that the real criminals (murderers, bank robbers, embezzelers, etc.) won't have anywhere to sleep.

It's been estimated that the average person commits 3 felonies a day as it is.

In reviewing the transcript from the May 17 hearing, we identified two primary issues posed by the Office that specifically relate to this question. First, the Office asked EFF to explain why it is necessary to hack ebook readers to accomplish tasks more suited for multi-purpose computing devices, especially considering that hacking an ebook reader potentially exposes literary works resident on the device to unauthorized access and infringement. See May 17 Transcript at 116-117 (statement of Mr. Carson). Second, the Office asked EFF to address why an exemption is necessary given that some ebook readers already enable many of the functions (such as reading email) that EFF claims hacking will enable on more limited ebook readers. See id. at 118-119 (statement of Ms. Pallante).

EFF's July 2 response fails to address either of these questions. Instead, EFF merely lists a number of functions it claims some consumers wish to enable on ebook readers, all of which can be accomplished on other devices. Not only can all these tasks be accomplished on other devices, they can be accomplished on other devices without circumvention. In addition, EFF completely ignores the increased risk of infringement that the proposed hacking would inevitably create, and fails to offer any explanation of why that risk should be deprecated in favor of allowing some consumers to circumvent in order to purchase ebook readers rather than multi-purpose devices, or to purchase single-purpose ebook readers rather than multi-purpose ebook readers.

As we have stated in our prior filings and during the hearings, EFF has failed to establish that any exemption similar to proposal #5 should be granted. For all of those previously referenced reasons as well as the reasons stated herein, the Register should reject EFF's request for an exemption applicable to ebook readers.

In other words, it's just an e-book reader, dummy, no need to add more features to it...

I am still scratching my head. Because the Register was unable to deliver (or receive from the EFF and the few other consumer-advocacy groups) an adequate definition of the term "Tablet", they decided that they could not extent the jailbreaking exemption from smartphones (to avoid risking unintended wide-spread effects):

Quote:

For example, an ebook reading device might be considered a “tablet,” as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer. Indeed, as Joint Creators note, the definition of “personal mobile computing device” may itself be susceptible to a wide array of interpretations, each of which could be subject to its own analysis in this proceeding. At least in this case, the record does not permit the Register to conduct the appropriate analysis with respect to the various types of devices that might fall within proponents’ broadly conceived “tablet” category.

and

Quote:

Perhaps in future rulemakings, as mobile computing technology evolves, such a definition will be more attainable; on this record, however, the Register must decline to recommend that the exemption include tablets.

Exemptions apply to the act of circumvention, but not to the separate provisions prohibiting "trafficking" in circumvention tools. So blind people who happen to be programmers are now free to write their own software to strip the DRM off their Kindle e-books in order to have them read aloud. But most blind people are not programmers. And anyone who supplies a blind person with the software needed to strip DRM from e-books is violating the "trafficking" provisions of the law even if the customer's use of the software is otherwise legal.

I agree Ars does make a good point. It's like how women in some countries are treated. They can't go to a male Dr. when they have a medical complaint, but at the same time women aren't allowed to become Dr's so...
And I am still trying to puzzle out how a blind person could be a programmer since they wouldn't be able to read the code they were trying to write that would then enable them to listen to their books.

But hiding an antenna in the attic wouldn't be making much of a statement.

Not paying a bill is the statement.

Cable subscribers fell for the first time in 2011. Their response is to lobby to have OTA freqencies returned to the government for other purposes. There are two types of lobbying -- cash and votes. In this day, I can't imagine it would be difficult to convince people that cable is a fundamental human right and force cable companies to provide pro bono cable service in markets where they sell premium services or at least cap cost to provide.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Free cable for people earning less that $250,000 a year. I think I can get that on a bumper sticker.

Seriously, everyone should put an antenna in their attic. In times of emergency, we tend to lose internet and cable. You cannot fix that with a generator. Satellite or antenna keeps you connected and passes the time.

In this day, I can't imagine it would be difficult to convince people that cable is a fundamental human right and force cable companies to provide pro bono cable service in markets where they sell premium services or at least cap cost to provide.

I'm not so sure this is compatible with Fascism. Abuse of copyright law for the purposes of mass criminalization doesn't benefit the proletariat, or the national identity.

What it does benefit is coercive anarcho-capitalism, because people will start blaming the government for this, instead of looking for the puppeteer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizwor

Not paying a bill is the statement.

Cable subscribers fell for the first time in 2011. Their response is to lobby to have OTA freqencies returned to the government for other purposes. There are two types of lobbying -- cash and votes.

More coercive anarcho-capitalism. Convince people that the government is to blame, and once the government has fallen the proletariat finds out exactly what it was encouraged to fight for and realizes that it was better off before the revolution.

In other words, the problem with hating "big government" (a phrase which is tragic in its clumsiness) is that less governing means even less representation for the ordinary voter and dangerous permissions for those whose citizen-abusing urges are only held in check by regulation and monitoring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teh603

[P]eople will start blaming the government for this instead of looking for the puppeteer.

I agree with the above statement.

What I'm not quite understanding is this: how wizwor's advocacy of lobbying for the return of cable bandwidth to the government is an embrace of crypto-capitalism. It sounds to me like an action which condemns deregulation -- not because of the involvement of the consumer, but because the result would be to reclaim once-public property (i.e., cable bandwidth).

It sounds as if you're disagreeing with the libertarian spin which is often applied to consumer activism: That consumers don't need government regulation because their buying power is sufficient.

But I don't think wizwor is saying that buying power is a substitute for regulation and government-agency monitoring. I think he's implying that buying power can help to create momentum for regulation in the otherwise profit-Wild West.

I do see how his telling us all to buy antennas could be seen in that light, but I didn't take it that way.